Non-profit

Guttmacher Institute

Location:

NEW YORK, NY

Tax ID:

13-2890727

Tax-Exempt Status:

501(c)(3)

Budget (2016):

Revenue: $23,975,422
Expenses: $22,885,624
Assets: $53,236,374

The Guttmacher Institute is a pro-abortion policy research organization founded in 1968 as a subsidiary of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) that became independent in 2007. [1] Guttmacher publishes studies that support expanding access to abortion and contraception in the United States and internationally.

The institute emphasizes its separation from PPFA, citing a 2010 contribution of $75,000 and a 2013 scholarship fund donation of $50,000 as the last times it received funding from its former parent organization. [2] At the same time, Guttmacher supports PPFA, which in turn cites the institute’s studies to promote expanding abortion access. In 2017, a Guttmacher Policy Review report called Planned Parenthood “critical” to the “the nation’s family planning safety net.” [3] Planned Parenthood Action then cited the report to argue that PPFA is “not replaceable.” [4] Guttmacher also maintains a strategic collaboration with the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF); PPFA and IPPF were both founded by progressive eugenicist Margaret Sanger, and PPFA is an IPPF associate member. [5] [6]

Guttmacher promotes other left-progressive causes, often connecting them to abortion access. In 2019, the Trump administration implemented a “public charge” immigration restriction, citing “self-sufficiency” as a “basic principle of U.S. immigration law.” [7] Guttmacher attacked the policy, saying it would lead to “severe reproductive health consequences,” respectively. [8] When Black Lives Matter-aligned demonstrations and riots erupted in 2020, the institute’s board of directors released a statement condemning “systemic, structural, and individual racism” in American society. [9]

History

In 1968, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America launched the Center for Family Planning Program Development. PPFA president Alan F. Guttmacher oversaw the center’s early development, and the center adopted his name as the Guttmacher Institute following his death in 1974. Three years later, the institute incorporated as a separate entity, but remained a “special affiliate” of Planned Parenthood. The formal affiliation ended in 2007, and Planned Parenthood drew down its funding for Guttmacher over the next several years. [10]

Reports

The Guttmacher Institute maintains an extensive series of reports on state laws relating to abortion and contraception, as well as sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy, and reproductive health topics.

Abortion

Guttmacher reports on annual abortion numbers and abortion rates. Its numbers for the United States are typically higher the ones published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), mainly because states such as California, Maryland, and New Hampshire do not report their statistics to the federal government. [11] In 2016, Guttmacher counted approximately 874,100 abortions while the CDC counted 623,421. [12] [13] In a 2016 international report, the institute estimated 53.6 million abortions in 2014 compared to just over 12.3 million reported by governments worldwide. [14] [15] For countries with abortion bans or irregular reporting, the report relied on “national representative studies,” not on official statistics. [16]

In addition to tracking abortion statistics, Guttmacher identifies states that ban abortion based on method, trimester, or other factors, as well as states that restrict funding or insurance coverage for abortions. [17] Some reports specifically target pro-life initiatives. One report singles out states that sell “Choose life” specialty license plates, especially those that use the revenue to promote pro-life causes like funding pregnancy resource centers. [18]

A 2007 report takes issue with “informed consent” laws, particularly those that include detailed descriptions of abortion procedures or fetal development. The report claimed that the phrases “eyelids are formed,” “able to swallow,” and “sleeps and awakens” constitute a “deliberate attempt to ‘personify’ the fetus.” The report critiques a North Dakota measure for noting that the word “fetus” is Latin and means “young one or offspring,” describing the language as “loaded.” [19]

Contraception

Guttmacher maintains lists of states that restrict taxpayer funding of contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs, and abortion-inducing devices or allow employers to exclude it from their health care plans. [20] It has also published reports highlighting states that allow minors and dependents to consent to contraception without their parents’ or insurance holders’ approval. [21] [22] Both reports state that dependents should not have to inform their guardians of their decision to obtain contraception.

Reproductive Health

Guttmacher catalogues access to STD and HIV testing and treatment, especially among women and minors. [23] It also publishes reports criticizing pro-abstinence sex-education programs. A report on sexual risk avoidance programs claims that such programs promote “outdated perceptions of gender roles at a time when there is movement in some segments of society to examine and improve gender dynamics.” The report also attacks programs that “emphasize heterosexual relationships as the expected societal norm” even though survey research indicates over 90 percent of Americans identify as heterosexual. [24] [25]

When it comes to reproductive health in general, the Institute places systemic factors above individual behaviors as the reason for disparate outcomes. A report on health care access among minority women says that higher unintended pregnancy rates stem from “a long history of racism.” The report also alleges that “law and order” policies and immigration enforcement constitute a threat to minority communities’ health. [26]

Studies

Physician Conscientious Objectors

In 2014, four Guttmacher researchers interviewed physicians in Bogotá, Colombia who expressed some degree of opposition to performing abortions. In their study, the researchers explicitly state their aim to “reduce the burden of conscientious objection as a barrier” to abortion, and call physicians who believe abortion is murder “a serious threat to women’s ability to access healthcare.” To achieve their stated goal, the researchers suggest “bringing moderate and extreme objectors together” and changing the minds of abortion opponents using their more pro-abortion colleagues’ “fellow Catholic’s perspective.” [27]

Birth Control Use Among Christians

In 2011, Guttmacher published a report on religious women’s attitudes towards contraception in the United States. The institute called it proof that “contraceptive use is the norm” even among Catholics and Evangelicals, whose church authorities oppose birth control and premarital sex. One of the study’s key findings states that “Only 2% of Catholic women rely on natural family planning.” This statement excludes the 58% of never-married Catholic adolescent females and 11% of never-married Catholic young adult women who practice abstinence. The report’s authors have insisted that contraception usage is ubiquitous among religious women. “In real-life America,” said lead author Rachel K. Jones, “contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible.” [28] The report, however, notes that about half of never-married women who either attend religious services every week or consider religion very important to their daily lives practice abstinence. [29]

In 2012, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) claimed that 98 percent of Catholic women use contraception, referring to the number from the report. The Washington Post, New York Times, and National Public Radio all echoed the claim. Jones issued a clarification that the number referred to “sexually experienced women of child-bearing age and who identify themselves as Catholic,” not all Catholic women. [30]

Guttmacher testifies before elected officials and files amicus briefs in favor of abortion and contraception access. [31]

The institute supported the Obama administration in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, arguing that an employer morally opposed to contraception and abortifacients must still cover them in their insurance plan. [32] The Supreme Court ruled against the administration and sided with Hobby Lobby’s opposition to the administration’s mandate. [33]

Financials

In 2017, left-of-center political activists increased their contributions to left-of-center organizations in anticipation of Trump administration policies. [34] Guttmacher received more than $63.2 million, compared to less than $24 million the previous year. The institute spent just over $24.6 million and held net assets of $83.5 million. [35]

In 2018, Guttmacher received just over $11.2 million from individuals, foundations, and governments. 7 percent of the institute’s revenue came from United States government agencies, and 9 percent came from foreign governments and global institutions. The institute spent more than $28.7 million, with 80% of expenses going towards program services, and held net assets of just over $64.2 million. [36] [37]

Notable private foundation contributors to the Guttmacher Institute have included the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, which spent an estimated $4 billion on abortion and contraception advocacy from 2000 through 2018; [38] the Foundation for the Carolinas, which holds the donor-advised fund of “anti-humanist environmentalist” Fred Stanback;[39] and other major liberal foundations including the JPB Foundation;[40] the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation;[41] and the Ford Foundation. [42]

References

  1. Guttmacher Institute, “About Us.” Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/about ^
  2. Guttmacher Institute, “The History of the Guttmacher Institute.” Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/about/history ^
  3. Kinsey Hasstedt, “Understanding Planned Parenthood’s Critical Role in the Nation’s Family Planning Safety Net,” Guttmacher Policy Review, January 12, 2017. Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2017/01/understanding-planned-parenthoods-critical-role-nations-family planning-safety-net ^
  4. Miriam Berg, “Guttmacher Report: Planned Parenthood is Not Replaceable,” Planned Parenthood Action, January 12, 2017. Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/blog/guttmacher-report-planned-parenthood-is-not-replaceable ^
  5. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, “Our History.” Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/our-history ^
  6. International Planned Parenthood Association, “Member Associations.” Accessed July 27, 2020.www.ippf.org/about-us/member-associations ^
  7. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Public Charge.” Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/public-charge ^
  8. Guttmacher Institute, “’Public Charge’ Rule: A Blatant Attack on Immigrants’ Rights with Severe Reproductive Health Consequences,” October 1, 2019. Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2019/10/public-charge-rule-blatant-attack-immigrants-rights-severe-reproductive-health ^
  9. Guttmacher Institute, “Statement by the Guttmacher Institute’s Board of Directors,” May 31, 2020. Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/statement-guttmacher-institutes-board-directors ^
  10. Guttmacher Institute, “50 Years of Impact.” Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/about/guttmacher-50th-timeline ^
  11. Charlotte Lozier Institute, “State Abortion Reporting,” October 29, 2019. Accessed July 27, 2020.

    State Abortion Reporting

    ^

  12. Guttmacher Institute, “Number of reported abortions, abortion rate and abortion ratio, United States, 2000-2017.” Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_downloads/abortion-incidence-service-availability-us-2017-tables.pdf ^
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Reproductive Health Data and Statistics.” Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm ^
  14. Dr. Gilda Sedgh, ScD et al, “Abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: global, regional, and subregional levels and trends,” The Lancet, July 16, 2016. Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30380-4/fulltext ^
  15. William Robert Johnston, “Summary of Reported Abortions Worldwide, through August 2015,” Johnston’s Archive, September 19, 2015. Accessed July 27, 2020. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp3314.html ^
  16. Arina O. Grossu and Thomas Jacobson, “New Report Wildly Inflates Global Abortion Numbers, The Federalist, May 26, 2016. Accessed July 27, 2020. https://thefederalist.com/2016/05/26/new-report-wildly-inflates-global-abortion-numbers/ ^
  17. Guttmacher Institute, “United States Abortion.” Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/abortion ^
  18. Guttmacher Institute, “’Choose Life’ License Plates.” Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/choose-life-license-plates ^
  19. Rachel Benson Gold and Elizabeth Nash, “State Abortion Counseling Policies and the Fundamental Principles of Informed Consent,” Guttmacher Policy Review, November 8, 2007. Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2007/11/state-abortion-counseling-policies-and-fundamental-principles-informed-consent ^
  20. Guttmacher Institute, “United States Contraception.” Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/contraception ^
  21. Guttmacher Institute, “Minors’ Access to Contraceptive Services.” Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/minors-access-contraceptive-services ^
  22. Guttmacher Institute, “Protecting Confidentiality for Individuals Insured as Dependents.” Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/protecting-confidentiality-individuals-insured-dependents ^
  23. Guttmacher Institute, “United States HIV & STIs.” Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/hiv-stis ^
  24. [1] Jesseca Boyer, “New Name, Same Harm: Rebranding of Federal Abstinence-Only Programs,” Guttmacher Policy Review, February 28, 2018. Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2018/02/new-name-same-harm-rebranding-federal-abstinence-only-programs ^
  25. Justin McCarthy, “Americans Still Greatly Overestimate U.S. Gay Population,” Gallup, June 27, 2019. Accessed July 27, 2020.https://news.gallup.com/poll/259571/americans-greatly-overestimate-gay-population.aspx ^
  26. Marcela Howell and Ann M. Starrs, “For Women of Color, Access to Vital Services Is Threatened,” Guttmacher Institute, July 2017. Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2017/07/women-color-access-vital-health-services-threatened ^
  27. Lauren R. Fink et al, “’The Fetus Is My Patient, Too’: Attitudes Toward Abortion and Referral Among Physician Conscientious Objectors in Bogotá, Colombia,” International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, June 2016. Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/ipsrh/2016/08/fetus-my-patient-too-attitudes-toward-abortion-and-referral-among-physician ^
  28. Guttmacher Institute, “Contraceptive Use Is the Norm Among Religious Women,” April 13, 2011. Accessed July 27, 2020.https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2011/contraceptive-use-norm-among-religious-women ^
  29. Rachel K. Jones and Joerg Dreweke, “Countering Conventional Wisdom: New Evidence on Religion and Contraceptive Use,” Guttmacher Institute, April 2011. Accessed July 27, 2020.https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/religion-and-contraceptive-use.pdf ^
  30. Glenn Kessler, “The claim that 98 percent of Catholic women use contraception: a media foul,” The Washington Post, February 12, 2012. Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html ^
  31. Guttmacher Institute, “Testimonies.” Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/tags/testimonies ^
  32. Walter Dellinger et al, “Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores & Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius – Guttmacher Institute,” American Civil Liberties Union, January 29, 2014. Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-conestoga-wood-specialties-corp-v-sebelius-guttmacher ^
  33.        Oyez, “Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.” Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-354#! ^
  34. Larry Kaplan, “How Far Does the Post-election Nonprofit Giving Surge Extend?,” Nonprofit Quarterly, April 17, 2017. Accessed July 27, 2020. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/nonprofit-giving-surge-extend/ ^
  35. Guttmacher Institute, “Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax,” 2017. Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/page_files/guttmacher_institute_2017_990.pdf ^
  36. Guttmacher Institute, “Financials.” Accessed July 27, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/about/financials ^
  37. Guttmacher Institute, “Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax,” 2018. Accessed July 27, 2020.https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/page_files/guttmacher_institute_2018_990.pdf ^
  38. Ludwig, Hayden. “Warren Buffett’s Foundation Has Poured $4 Billion into Pro-Abortion Advocacy,” March 11, 2020. https://capitalresearch.org/article/warren-buffetts-foundation-has-poured-4-billion-into-pro-abortion-advocacy/. ^
  39. Braun, Ken. “‘Anti-Humanist Environmentalism’ and the Foundation for the Carolinas.” Capital Research Center. Capital Research Center, June 18, 2019. https://capitalresearch.org/article/anti-humanist-environmentalism-and-the-foundation-for-the-carolinas/. ^
  40. JPB Foundation, Return of a Private Foundation (Form 990-PF), 2018, Part XV Line 3 ^
  41. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Return of a Private Foundation (Form 990-PF), 2017, Part XV Line 3 ^
  42. Ford Foundation, Return of a Private Foundation (Form 990-PF), 2017, Part XV Line 3 ^

Directors, Employees & Supporters

  See an error? Let us know!

Nonprofit Information

  • Accounting Period: December - November
  • Tax Exemption Received: May 1, 1977

  • Available Filings

    Period Form Type Total revenue Total functional expenses Total assets (EOY) Total liabilities (EOY) Unrelated business income? Total contributions Program service revenue Investment income Comp. of current officers, directors, etc. Form 990
    2016 Dec Form 990 $23,975,422 $22,885,624 $53,236,374 $10,947,479 N $23,453,108 $3,884 $368,818 $1,926,388
    2015 Dec Form 990 $18,836,838 $19,285,598 $53,611,184 $11,067,753 N $18,054,764 $28,687 $456,038 $1,775,567 PDF
    2014 Dec Form 990 $16,595,403 $17,443,509 $55,093,707 $11,513,237 N $16,097,083 $33,831 $352,248 $1,407,146 PDF
    2013 Dec Form 990 $22,206,977 $16,304,349 $55,412,971 $11,402,583 N $21,661,037 $39,383 $287,349 $1,846,426 PDF
    2012 Dec Form 990 $21,910,505 $15,329,634 $47,734,701 $11,412,629 N $21,896,273 $48,391 $430,720 $1,592,451 PDF
    2011 Dec Form 990 $19,081,010 $13,555,458 $40,198,882 $11,517,993 N $19,209,135 $77,594 $225,632 $1,335,029 PDF

    Additional Filings (PDFs)

    Guttmacher Institute

    125 MAIDEN LANE 7TH FLOOR
    NEW YORK, NY 10038-4723